Response to Vogel’s motion to add CDM Services

No. 10-11202
In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
NETSPHERE, INC. Et Al, 
Plaintiffs
v.
JEFFREY BARON, 
Defendant-Appellant
v.
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, 
Defendant-Appellee
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Appeal of Order Appointing Receiver in Settled Lawsuit
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cons. w/ No. 11-10113
NETSPHERE INC., Et Al,  Plaintiffs
v.
JEFFREY BARON, Et Al, Defendants
v.
QUANTEC L.L.C.; NOVO POINT L.L.C., 
Appellants
v.
PETER S. VOGEL, 
Appellee
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Appeal of Order Adding Non-Parties Novo Point, LLC 
and Quantec, LLC as Receivership Parties
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
From the United States District Court
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
RESPONSE TO VOGEL SEALED FIFTH MOTION TO PLACE 
ANOTHER ENTITY INTO RECEIVERSHIP EX PARTE AND 
WITHOUT SERVICE OF PROCESS, NOTICE OR HEARING
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Case: 10-11202     Document: 00511598228     Page: 1     Date Filed: 09/09/2011

-
1
-
TO THE HONORABLE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS:
COMES NOW Appellants, and subject to the preliminary Fifth Amendment 
objection and motion previously filed in this cause, Appellants make this response 
with  respect  to  Vogel’s  7-06-11  Motion  to  clarify  receiver  order  to  place  yet 
another entity into receivership ex parte and without service of process, notice, or 
hearing.
I. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY 
Vogel’s  factual  assertions  are  not  supported  by  the  record  or  affidavits 
offered by Vogel.  Most notably, Jeff Baron does not own nor manage the entity 
Vogel  seeks  to  be  appointed  receiver  over.    Further,  Vogel  has  a  fundamental 
misunderstanding of the law, and offers no authority for the relief he has requested.
As  a  fundamental  principle  of  well-established  law,  a  court  rendering  a 
ruling against  a  party  must  first acquire jurisdiction  over that  party  by personal 
service  or  voluntary  appearance.    St.  Clair  v.  Cox,  106  U.S.  350,  353  (1882).  
Before  a  federal  court  may  exercise  personal  jurisdiction  over  a  defendant,  the 
procedural  requirement  of  service  of  summons  must  be  satisfied.  Omni  Capital 
Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987).  Orders issued without 
personal  jurisdiction  are  void.  Pennoyer  v.  Neff,  95  U.S.  714,  728  (1878).  
Accordingly, as a fundamental and preliminary step, service of process and notice 
should  be  served  on the  entity Vogel desires  to be  appointed receiver  over,  and 
hearing held on the grounds by which Vogel asserts he is entitled to such remedy.   
Case: 10-11202     Document: 00511598228     Page: 2     Date Filed: 09/09/2011

-
2
-
Vogel’s Wild-West view of the law where fundamental Due Process is ignored
should be rejected out of hand by this Honorable Court.  
Similarly, since there was no claim or controversy concerning the non-party 
Vogel  seeks  to  be  made  the  receiver  over,  the  District  Court  below  and  this 
Honorable  Court  lack  subject  matter  jurisdiction  to  place  the  company  into 
receivership.    Cochrane  v.  WF  Potts  Son  &  Co.,  47  F.2d  1026,  1029  (5th  Cir. 
1931); Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998); and 
see Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986); Middle 
South  Energy,  Inc.  v.  City  of  New  Orleans,  800  F.2d  488,  490  (5th  Cir.  1986)
(without an actual case or controversy between the parties within the meaning of 
Article III of the Constitution there is no subject matter jurisdiction).  Accordingly, 
Vogel’s request should be denied.
WHEREFORE, Vogel’s motion should be in all things denied and overruled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
Texas State Bar No. 00791608
5400 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75240
(214) 210-5940 - Telephone
(214) 347-4031 - Facsimile
Email: legal@schepps.net
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS
Case: 10-11202     Document: 00511598228     Page: 3     Date Filed: 09/09/2011

-
3
-
AUTHORITY CITED
FEDERAL CASES
Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986).................... 2
Cochrane v. WF Potts Son & Co., 47 F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir. 1931) .................. 2
Middle South Energy, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 800 F.2d 488, 490 (5th Cir. 
1986).................................................................................................................. 2
Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987).............. 1
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 728 (1878) ............................................................ 1
St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U.S. 350, 353 (1882)............................................................. 1
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998).................... 2
Case: 10-11202     Document: 00511598228     Page: 4     Date Filed: 09/09/2011

-
4
-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that this motion was served this day on all parties who receive 
notification through the Court’s electronic filing system.
CERTIFIED BY: /s/ Gary N. Schepps
Gary N. Schepps
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
Case: 10-11202     Document: 00511598228     Page: 5     Date Filed: 09/09/2011